For the Mouth of the Emperor hath spoken it: Some notes on C. 1,14,12 and the prohibition of commentaries in const. Tanta

(1)

University of Groningen

For the Mouth of the Emperor hath spoken it van Bochove, Thomas

Published in:

Subseciva Groningana

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date: 2019

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

van Bochove, T. (2019). For the Mouth of the Emperor hath spoken it: Some notes on C. 1,14,12 and the prohibition of commentaries in const. Tanta. Subseciva Groningana, 10, 85-96.

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

(2)

(3)

(4)

Subseciva Groningana

Studies in Roman and Byzantine Law

X

In Honour of Roos Meijering

Chimaira Groningæ

(5)

SUBSECIVA GRONINGANA X Studies in Roman and Byzantine Law Collegerunt et edenda curaverunt

D. Penna, F. Brandsma, Th.E. van Bochove

Manuscripts in digital format (Word docx) may be sent to:

Dr Th.E. van Bochove, Faculty of Law, P.O. Box 716, 9700 AS Groningen, The Netherlands email: rechtsgeschiedenis@rug.nl

Chimaira BV, Groenesteinlaan 22, 9722 BX Groningen, The Netherlands tel.: (+31) 50 5254656 email: chimaira.nl@gmail.com

Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd en/of openbaar gemaakt door middel van druk, fotocopie, microfilm of op welke andere wijze dan ook, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without prior written permission from the publisher.

NUR 821

(6)

V

PREFACE

Thirty-five years ago, on December 2nd, 1983, the Subseciva Groningana proudly presen-ted themselves with prefaces in Dutch and Latin on facing pages. Both their name and date were a tribute to the founder of what had become the ‘Groningen School’ of Graeco-Roman Law, Professor Herman Jan Scheltema, who had died two years earlier, and whose own series of subseciva had pointed the way to where we are now. Scheltema’s subseciva had not been just ‘left-overs’, as their name seemed to suggest. True, they were occasional pieces in comparison to the edition of the Basilica cum scholiis, which he, with the help of Nicolaas van der Wal and Douwe Holwerda, had completed in manuscript just before his death, but these misleadingly brief papers contain many of the discoveries he had made while prepa-ring the edition. Indeed, it was for their sake that he had set himself the Herculean task of editing the Basilica: in search of information about Justinian’s legislation.

The Subseciva Groningana did not and do not pretend to equal that achievement. Their name continues to refer to origin and main direction of what their editors imagined in 1983. The tenth issue now lies before the reader. Tom van Bochove has again acted as a meticulous copy-editor. As usual, Karen Mulders has done the lion’s share of the invisible work.

This volume is dedicated to Roos Meijering, in gratitude for her contribution to editions and papers during the years she has occupied herself with the – to her taetra – jurisprudentia. Special mention should be made here of her part in the preparation of the Theophili

Para-phrasis Institutionum. Our best wishes accompany her in her retirement.

Thirty-five years and ten volumes: the numbers suggest a jubilee and a milestone. That is as it may be: they also are a reminder that some time has passed since the idea of a Groningen series of occasional publications on Graeco-Roman law was first floated, and that the hour has come for the founding editors to make way for the next generation. In 2015 our colleague and friend Nicolaas van der Wal passed away. The remaining two editors, having contribu-ted to this tenth volume, have decided to step aside, with best wishes for the new team. A new development is that previous issues of the Subseciva Groningana can now be found in our online archive: https://ugp.rug.nl/sg/.

May the Subseciva prosper! Groningen, 2 December 2018 Jan H.A. Lokin

(7)

(8)

VII

CONTENTS

M.Th. Tantalos,

On the alienation of the dowry.

1 19 85 97 111 123 139 163 Remarks concerning the application of the Senatus Consultum Velleianum

and διδασκαλία τοῦ νόμου in Byzantine Law H. Weber,

Ancient beliefs on the essence of sanctity.

Further Eastern attestations of a lost Gaian excursus Th.E. van Bochove,

For the mouth of the Emperor hath spoken it.

Some notes on C. 1,14,12 and the prohibition of commentaries in const. Tanta Th.E. van Bochove,

‘There is safety in numbers’ – when written in full.

The Florentine Index auctorum and its subscriptio revisited F. Brandsma,

Did Paul cause an interpolation in the second Code? A glance into the kitchen of Justinian's codification project J.H.A. Lokin,

The changing status of the mandata principis D. Penna,

A witness of Byzantine legal practice in the twelfth century. Some remarks on the construction of the Ecloga Basilicorum B.H. Stolte,

Thirty Years Later.

Past, Present and Future of Editing the Basilica N. van der Wal †,

(9)

(10)

IX

ABBREVIATIONS*

AARC Atti dell’Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana

Actes de Docheiariou N. Oikonomidès (éd.), Actes de Docheiariou, (Archives de l’Αthos, XIII), Paris 1984

Αctes de Saint-Pantéléèmôn P. Lemerle/G. Dagron/S. Ćirković (éd.), Αctes de Saint-Pantéléèmôn, (Archives de l’Athos, XII), Paris 1982 Actes de Vatopédi, I J. Bompaire/J. Lefort /V. Kravari/C. Giros (éd.), Actes de

Vatopédi. I. Des origines à 1329, (Archives de l’Αthos, XXI), Paris 2001

Actes de Vatopédi, II J. Lefort/V. Kravari/Ch. Giros/K. Smyrlis (éd.), Actes de Vatopédi. II. De 1330 à 1376, (Archives de l’Athos, XXII), Paris 2006

AG Archivio giuridico

ASD Annali di Storia del diritto

AT Annali Triestini. Annali della Regia Università degli Studi Economici e Commerciali di Trieste

Athan. Athanasius of Emesa, Syntagma of the Novels of

Justi-nian, edd. D. Simon/Sp. Troianos, Das Novellen-syn-tagma des Athanasios von Emesa, [Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Band 16], Frank-furt/M. 1989

AUPA Annali del Seminario Giuridico dell’Università degli Studi di Palermo

B. Basilicorum libri LX, edd. H.J. Scheltema/D. Holwerda/

N. van der Wal, Groningen 1953-1988 (Basilica praefa-tio, ed. Schminck, Studien, 22-23)

BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies

BIDR Bullettino dell’Istituto di Diritto Romano

* It should be noted that in this list of Abbreviations, papyri and non-legal authors and their works are not referred to separately. In the individual contributions contained in the present volume, the non-legal authors and works are quoted in accordance with the system of Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, vii-xi; OLD, I, xviii-xxix; LSJ, xvi-xxxviii; and Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ix-xliii. Papyri are quoted in accordance with the checklist of editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets (founding editors: John F. Oates and William H. Willis), www.papyri.info/docs/checklist, October, 2018.

(11)

X

BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies

BNJ Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher

BS B., Series B: Scholia (quoted after page and line)

BT B., Series A: Textus (quoted after page and line)

ByzSym Byzantina Symmeikta

BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift

C. Codex Iustinianus; ed. P. Krüger [Corpus iuris civilis II]

CFHB Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

Coll. Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio

CollTrip. Collectio Tripartita, ed. N. van der Wal/B.H. Stolte, Collectio Tripartita. Justinian on Religious and Eccle-siastical Affairs, Groningen 1994

CQ Classical Quarterly

CTh. Codex Theodosianus, ed. Th. Mommsen (adsumpto

apparatu P. Kruegeri), Theodosiani libri XVI cum con-stitutionibus Sirmondianis. Vol. I, pars prior: Prolego-mena; pars posterior: Textus cum apparatu. Berolini 1905

D. Digesta, ed. Th. Mommsen [Corpus iuris civilis I]

Darrouzès, Regestes V J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople. Vol. I: Les actes des Patriarches. Fasc. V: Les regestes de 1310 à 1376, Paris 1977

Darrouzès, Regestes VI J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople. Vol. I: Les actes des Patriarches. Fasc. VI: Les regestes de 1377 à 1410, Paris 1979

Diritto@Storia Diritto@Storia. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Giuridiche e Tradizione Romana (www.dirittoestoria.it)

DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers

DS Ch. Daremberg/E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquités

grecques et romaines d’après les textes et les monu-ments

Ecl.B. Ecloga Basilicorum, ed. L. Burgmann, Ecloga

Basilicorum, [Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechts-geschichte, Band 15], Frankfurt/M. 1988

ED Enciclopedia del Diritto

EEBΣ Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν

Eis. Eisagoge, ed. K.E. Zachariä νοn Lingenthal, in: Zepos,

JGR ΙΙ, 229-368 (Eisagoge praefatio, ed. Schminck, Studien, 4-11)

(12)

XI

Epit. Epitome legum, ed. K.E. Zachariä νοn Lingenthal, in:

Zepos, JGR IV, 261-585 (Epitome legum praefatio, ed. Schminck, Studien, 112-119)

FM Fontes Minores

Gai. Epit. Gai Epitome, ed. B. Kübler, Gai Institutionum epitome, in: Iurisprudentiae anteiustinianae reliquias in usum maxime academicum compositas a P.E. Huschke, II, 2, Leipzig 19276_{, 395-431}

Gaius Gai Institutiones, ed. M. David, Gai Institutiones secun-dum codicis Veronensis apographum Studemun-dia-num et reliquias in Aegypto repertas…, [Studia Gaiana, Vol. I], Leiden 1964 (unless indicated otherwise) Hb. I-V; Heimbach, Vol. I-V C.W.E. Heimbach, Basilicorum libri LX, 5 vols.,

Leipzig; I: 1833, II: 1840, III: 1843, IV: 1846, V: 1850 Heimbach, GRR C.W.E. Heimbach, Griechisch-römisches Recht im

Mittelalter und Neuzeit, in: Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, hrsg. von J.S. Ersch und J.G. Gruber, 1. Section, 86. Theil, Leipzig 1868 (repr. Graz 1976), 191-471

Heimbach, Manuale see: Heimbach, Prolegomena

Heimbach, Prolegomena C.W.E. Heimbach, Basilicorum libri LX, vol. VI: Prolegomena et Manuale Basilicorum continens, Leip-zig 1870 (partial repr. Amsterdam 1962)

Hex. Const. Harmenopoulos, Hexabiblos, ed. G.E.

Heim-bach, Const. Harmenopuli Manuale legum sive Hexa-biblos cum appendicibus et legibus agrariis. …, Lipsiae 1851 (repr. Aalen 1969)

Inst. Iustiniani Institutiones, ed. P. Krüger [Corpus Iuris civilis I]

Il Filangieri Il Filangieri. Rivista periodica mensuale di scienze giuridiche e politico-amministrative

ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae

Index Index. Quaderni camerti di studi romanistici

IURA IURA. Rivista internazionale di diritto romano e antico

JGR Jus Graecoromanum, edd. J. Zepos – P. Zepos

(13)

XII

JÖB Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik

Julian. Julianus, Epitome Latina of the Novels of Justinian, ed. G. Haenel, Iuliani Epitome Latina Novellarum Iusti-niani, Lipsiae 1873 (repr. Osnabrück 1965)

Krüger, Editio maior P. Krüger, Codex Iustinianus. Editio maior, Berlin 1877 (repr.: [100 Jahre Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. Pandekten-recht, 62], Goldbach 1998)

Labeo Labeo. Rassegna di diritto romano

LSJ H.G. Liddell/R. Scott/H. Stuart Jones, A Greek – English

Lexicon (with revised Supplement, ed. P.G.W. Glare, 1996), Oxford 19409_{(repr. 2018)}

Mansi G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima

collectio, 53 vols. in 58 pts., Paris-Leipzig 1901-1927

MM F. Miklosich/J. Müller, Acta et Diplomata Graeca Medii

Aevi, Vol. I – VI, Wien 1860-1890 (repr. Aalen 1968) Mo. ed. mai. Mommsen, editio maior; see: Mommsen, Praefatio Mommsen, Praefatio Th. Mommsen, Digesta Iustiniani Augusti. Editio maior,

2 vols., Berlin 1868-1870; Vol. I: Praefatio (repr.: [100 Jahre Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. Pandekten-recht, 61], Goldbach 2001)

Nov. Novellae, edd. R. Schöll/G. Kroll [Corpus iuris civilis III] Nov. Leon. Novellae Leonis Sapientis, edd. P. Noailles/A. Dain, Les Novelles de Léon VI le Sage. Texte et traduction, Paris 1944; ed. Σπ. Τρωιάνος, Οι Νεαρές Λέοντος Ϛ´ του Σοφού. Προλεγόμενα, κείμενο, απόδοση στη νεοελληνική, ευρετήρια και επίμετρο, Αθήνα 2007

NNDI Novissimo Digesto Italiano (Torino, 1957-1979)

Nov. Maj. Novellae Majoriani, ed. P.M. Meyer (adiutore Th. Mommseno), Leges Novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, (= Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutio-nibus Sirmondianis, Vol. II), Berolini 1905

Nov. Marc. Novellae Marciani, ed. P.M. Meyer (adiutore Th. Mommseno), Leges Novellae ad Theodosianum perti-nentes, (= Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis, Vol. II), Berolini 1905

(14)

XIII

Nov. Theod. Novellae Theodosii, ed. P.M. Meyer (adiutore Th. Mommseno), Leges Novellae ad Theodosianum perti-nentes, (= Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis, Vol. II), Berolini 1905

Nov. Val. Novellae Valentiniani, ed. P.M. Meyer (adiutore Th. Mommseno), Leges Novellae ad Theodosianum perti-nentes, (= Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis, Vol. II), Berolini 1905

NRHD Nouvelle revue historique de droit français et étranger,

1877-1921

ODB The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, edd. A.P.

Kazhdan/A.-M. Talbot/A. Cutler/T.E. Gregory/N.P. Šev-čenko, 3 vols., New York/Oxford 1991

OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary, 2 vols., (Vol. I: A-L, Vol. II:

M-Z), ed. P.G.W. Glare, Oxford 20122

Paul. Sent. Pauli Sententiae, ed. E. Seckel/B. Kübler, Iulii Pauli libri quinque Sententiarum ad filium, in: Iurispruden-tiae anteiustinianae reliquias in usum maxime acade-micum compositas a P.E. Huschke, II, 1, Leipzig 19116_, 1-161

Peira Peira Eustathii Romani, ed. K.E. Zachariä νοn

Lingen-thal, in: Zepos, JGR IV, 9-260

PG J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca

1-161, Paris 1857-1866

Pieler, Rechtsliteratur P.E. Pieler, ‘Byzantinische Rechtsliteratur’, in: H. Hun-ger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzanti-ner, II (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft XII.5.2), Munich 1978, 341-480

PLP E. Trapp/R. Walther/H.-V. Beyer/K. Sturm-Schnabl/E.

Kislinger/S. Kaplaneres/I. Leontiadis (Hrgb.), Prosopo-graphisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, Vol. I-XII, Wien 1976-1996

Proch. Prochiron, ed. K.E. Zachariä (νοn Lingenthal), in: Zepos, JGR II, 107-228 (Prochiron praefatio, ed. Schminck, Studien, 56-61)

PWRE Pauly & Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft

(15)

XIV

RDR Rivista di Diritto Romano. Periodico di storia del diritto ro-mano di diritti antichi e della tradizione romanistica medio-evale e moderna (www.ledonline.it/rivistadirittoromano)

RÉB Revue des Études Byzantines

RHBR, I L. Burgmann/M.Th. Fögen/A. Schminck/D. Simon,

Reper-torium der Handschriften des byzantinischen Rechts, Teil I. Die Handschriften des weltlichen Rechts (Nr. 1-327), [Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 20], Frankfurt/M. 1995

RHD Revue historique de droit français et étranger, 1922-

Rhom. ag. Ῥωμαϊκαὶ ἀγωγαί (ed. R. Meijering, ‘Ῥωμαϊκαὶ ἀγω-γαί. Two Byzantine Treatises on Legal Actions’, FM VIII (1990), 1-152

RIDA Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité

RISG Rivista Italiana per le Scienze Giuridiche

RJ Rechtshistorisches Journal RP Γ. Ράλλης/Μ. Ποτλῆς, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καί ἱερῶν κανόνων τῶν τε ἁγίων καί πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων καί τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν καί τοπικῶν συνόδων καί τῶν κατά μέρος ἁγίων πατέρων, τ. Α´ – ΣΤ´, Ἀθήνησιν 1852-1859 (repr. Athens 1992)

SBM Synopsis Basilicorum maior, ed. Κ.Ε. Zachariä νοn

Lin-genthal, in: Zepos, JGR V, 1-599

SCDR Seminarios Complutenses de Derecho Romano. Revista

Internacional de Derecho Romano y Tradición Roma-nística

Schminck, Studien A. Schminck, Studien zu mittelbyzantinischen Rechts-büchern, [Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechts-ge-schichte, Band 13], Frankfurt/M. 1986

SDHI Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris

SG Subseciva Groningana

SK Novellae edd. Schöll/Kroll

SS Studi Senesi

SZ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte,

(16)

XV

TheodBrev. Theodorus of Hermoupolis, Breviarium of the Novels of Justinian, ed. C.E. Zachariae, Ἀνέκδοτα. III: Theodori scholastici Breviarium Novellarum …, Lipsiae 1843 (repr. Aalen 1969)

Theoph. Theophili antecessoris Paraphrasis graeca Institutio-num Iustiniani, edd. J.H.A. Lokin/R. Meijering/B.H. Stolte/N. van der Wal. With a Translation by A.F. Murison, Gro-ningen 2010

Tit. Ulp. Tituli ex corpore Ulpiani, ed. F. Schulz, Die Epitome Ulpiani des Codex Vaticana Reginae 1128, Bonn 1926

TM Travaux et Mémoires

TRG Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis

Van der Wal/Lokin, Delineatio N. van der Wal/J.H.A. Lokin, Historiae iuris graeco-romani delineatio. Les sources du droit byzantin de 300 à 1453, Groningen 1985

VIR Vocabularium Iurisprudentiae Romanae, 5 vols., (Vol.

I: A-C; Vol. II: D-G; Vol. III: H-M; Vol. IV: N-Q; Vol. V: R-Z), edd. O. Gradenwitz, B. Kübler, et al., Berolini 1903-1987

VV Vizantijskij Vremennik

Zepos, JGR J. Zepos/P. Zepos, Jus Graecoromanum, Vol. I – VIII, Athenis 1931 (repr. Aalen 1962)

ZfgR Zeitschrift für geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft,

1815-1850

(17)

(18)

85

FOR THE MOUTH OF THE EMPEROR HATH SPOKEN IT*

Some notes on C. 1,14,12 and the prohibition of commentaries in const. Tanta

In the year 527, Justinian ascended the imperial throne of Byzantium. Before his reign, there existed two sources of law: the leges, constitutions promulgated by Justinian’s imperial predecessors, and the ius, the writings of important lawyers and legal scholars

(iurispruden-tes) from the past, such as Gaius, Modestinus, Papinian, Paul, and Ulpian. It goes without

saying that all these writings contained many conflicting opinions and interpretations. Justinian changed all that. He had a committee led by Tribonian collect and excerpt the writings of the iurisprudentes.1_{The ensuing result was eventually laid down in the Digest.}

In const. Deo auctore, which was issued on 15 December 530 while commissioning the work on the Digest, Justinian explicitly stated that all the excerpts from the writings of the iurisprudentes that were going to be adopted into the Digest, would have equal authority as if those excerpts had originated from imperial constitutions, and had been pronounced by his own imperial mouth. Thus, Justinian made the words of the iurisprudentes his very own:

(…): ut omnes qui relati fuerint in hunc codicem prudentissimi viri habeant auctoritatem tam, quasi et eorum studia ex principalibus constitutionibus profecta et a nostro divino fuerant ore profusa. omnia enim merito nostra facimus, quia ex nobis omnis eis impertietur auctoritas.2

* Adapted quotation from Isaiah 40:5. The present article is ultimately based on my study ‘Justinianus Latinograecus. Language and Law during the Reign of Justinian’, § 3, § 6.2, § 7.1, and § 7.2 (forthcoming in the volume Latin in Byzantium. Contexts and Forms of Usage in Late Antiquity and

Beyond, to be edited by Alessandro Garcea, Michela Rosellini, and Luigi Silvano).

1 On Tribonian and his committee, cf. const. Deo auctore, § 3; const. Tanta / Δέδωκεν, § 9; cf. also e.g. T. Honoré, ‘The Background to Justinian’s Codification’, Tulane Law Review 48 (1973-1974), 859-893 (869-859-893); T. Honoré, Tribonian, London 1978; T. Honoré, Justinian’s Digest: Character and

Compilation, Oxford 2010, passim.

(19)

VAN BOCHOVE

86

We come across the same notion in const. Tanta / Δέδωκεν, which was issued on 16 Decem-ber 533 and which marked the completion of the text of the Digest. In the relevant passage, we read that if in the writings of the old iurisprudentes there had appeared to be anything superfluous, imperfect, or less suitable, it had been extended or reduced in size, and been ranged under the most correct rule. Moreover, we learn that in the many cases of repetition or contradiction, each time the best possible alternative had been selected and given its place in the Digest, in preference over the other possibilities. To this Justinian added that every-thing had been provided with the same force of law, so that whatever had been written in the Digest would appear to be his own work, and compiled by his own will: thus, Justinian again appropriated the words of the old iurisprudentes, as he had already done in const. Deo

auctore. This time, however, the emperor went beyond this: in order to protect his Digest

text, he added an official ban on the collation of the texts of the iurisprudentes and that of the Digest, a prohibition to compare what the old iurisprudentes had written, and what he himself had introduced, reasoning that many important changes had been made for practical reasons:

(…): hoc tantummodo a nobis effecto, ut, si quid in legibus eorum vel supervacuum vel imperfectum aut minus idoneum visum est, vel adiectionem vel deminutionem necessariam accipiat et rectissimis tradatur regulis. Et in multis similibus vel contrariis quod rectius habere apparebat, hoc pro aliis omnibus positum est unaque omnibus auctoritate indulta, ut quidquid ibi scriptum est, hoc nostrum appareat et ex nostra voluntate compositum: nemine audente comparare ea quae antiquitas habebat et quae nostra auctoritas introduxit, quia multa et maxi-ma sunt, quae propter utilitatem rerum transformaxi-mata sunt. (…). / (…), ἀμείψαντες μὲν εἴ τι περ ἔχειν ἡμῖν οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐδόκει, μέρη δὲ τὰ μὲν ἀφελόντες τὰ δὲ προσθέντες, ἐκ πολλῶν τε τὸ κάλλιον ἑλόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἴσην ἅπασιν παρασχόντες τῆς ἐξουσίας ἰσχύν. ὥστε πᾶν ὅπερ ἐνγέγραπται τῷ βιβλίῳ, τοῦτο ἡμετέρᾳ γενέσθαι γνώμῃ, μηδένα τε θαρρεῖν παρατιθέναι τὰ γενόμενα νῦν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν, ἐπειδὴ πολλὰ καὶ οὐδὲ ἀριθμηθῆναι ῥᾴδια μετατεθείκαμεν εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον, (…).3

Justinian did not stop here, for he also provided the Digest with exclusivity. In const. Tanta /

Δέδωκεν, § 19, addressed to the senate of Constantinople and all people living in the

Byzan-tine empire – patres conscripti et omnes orbis terrarum homines / φαμὲν δὲ ὑμᾶς τε ὦ μεγά-λη βουλὴ καὶ ὁ λοιπὸς ἅπας τῆς ἡμετέρας πολιτείας ἄνθρωπος – we read that Justinian ordered the addressees to revere and uphold the laws, while laying the older ones to rest. The emperor allowed no one to compare the Digest with the earlier provisions, or to investi-gate if there was any discrepancy between them: only the rulings incorporated into the

(20)

FOR THE MOUTH OF THE EMPEROR HATH SPOKEN IT

87

Digest were to be observed. In the courts of law, and in other disputes where laws were

applicable, Justinian strictly forbade quotations from other books than the Institutes, the

Digest and the Code: offenders, and judges who allowed quotations from other sources were

to be found guilty of the crime of forgery and should be punished accordingly:

(…). Hasce itaque leges et adorate et observate omnibus antiquioribus quiescentibus: nemo-que vestrum audeat vel comparare eas prioribus vel, si quid dissonans in utronemo-que est, requirere, quia omne quod hic positum est hoc unicum et solum observari censemus. Nec in iudicio nec in alio certamine, ubi leges necessariae sunt, ex aliis libris, nisi ab iisdem institutionibus nos-trisque digestis et constitutionibus a nobis compositis vel promulgatis aliquid vel recitare vel ostendere conetur, nisi temerator velit falsitatis crimini subiectus una cum iudice, qui eorum audientiam patiatur, poenis gravissimis laborare. / (…), χρῆσθε δὲ τοῖς ἡμετέροις νόμοις, τῶν τοῖς πάλαι βιβλίοις ἐνγεγραμμένων προσέχοντες οὐδενί, οὐδὲ ἀντεξετάζοντες αὐτὰ πρὸς τὰ νῦν κείμενα, διὰ τὸ κἂν εἰ δοκοίη τινά πως ἀλλήλοις μὴ συμφθέγγεσθαι, ἀλλ᾿ οὖν τὸ μὲν πρότερον ἡμῖν ὡς ἀλυσιτελὲς ἀπαρέσαι, τὸ νῦν δὲ τοῦτο δόξαι κρατεῖν. καὶ γὰρ ἀπαγορεύομεν ἐκείνοις τὸ λοιπὸν χρῆσθαι, ταῦτα δὲ δὴ καὶ μόνα πολιτεύεσθαί τε καὶ κρατεῖν συγχωροῦμέν τε καὶ θεσπίζομεν· ὡς ὅ γε ἐπιχειρῶν ἐκ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν βιβλίων, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκ τούτων δὴ τῶν δύο βιβλίων μόνων καὶ τῶν διατάξεων τῶν παρ᾿ ἡμῶν συντιθεμένων ἢ γενομένων, χρῆσθαί τισιν νόμοις ἢ τούτους ἐν δικαστηρίοις ἀναγινώσκειν ἤ, εἴ γε δικάζοι, τούτων ὑπ᾿ αὐτῷ δεικνυμένων ἀνέχεσθαι, παραποιήσεως ἔνοχος ἔσται καὶ δημοσίων ἀδικη-μάτων κριθεὶς τὰ τῆς ποινῆς, εἰ καὶ μὴ λέγοιμεν, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτόθεν πρόδηλον ὡς ὑποστήσεται.4

In this passage, four elements can be discerned. First, we come across the order to observe the Digest, and to lay to rest all rulings preceding it. Second, the passage contains a reiterated prohibition of the collation of texts, viz. those of the Digest and of the sources underlying it. Third, there is the exclusivity clause proper: the explicit pronouncement that the Digest is exclusively valid, resulting in the formal abrogation of the writings of the iurisprudentes not incorporated into that compilation. Fourth, the passage contains a repeated exclusivity clause, this time extending to Justinian’s codification in its entirety. In legal proceedings, it is expressly forbidden to quote from other sources than the Institutes, the Digest and the

Code. Transgressors of the prohibition and the judge allowing the transgression are guilty

of the crimen falsitatis and are subject to its penalty.

Finally, Justinian promulgated the Digest as one enormous imperial constitution: as of 30 December 533, the emperor granted the Digest – together with the Institutes – full force of law. In the words of Tanta / Δέδωκεν:

4 Const. Tanta / Δέδωκεν, § 19.

(21)

VAN BOCHOVE

88

Leges autem nostras, quae in his codicibus, id est institutionum seu elementorum et digesto-rum vel pandectadigesto-rum posuimus, suum obtinere robur ex tertio nostro felicissimo sancimus consulatu, praesentis duodecimae indictionis tertio calendas Ianuarias, in omne aevum vali-turas (…). / Ταῦτα δὲ δὴ τὰ βιβλία, τά τε τῶν Instituton τά τε τῶν Digeston φαμέν, ἐκ τοῦ πέρατος τῆς τρίτης εὐτυχοῦς ἡμῶν ὑπατείας κρατεῖν θεσπίζομεν, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸ τριῶν καλανδῶν Ἰανουαρίων τῆς παρούσης δωδεκάτης ἐπινεμήσεως, εἰς τὸν λοιπὸν ἅπαντα κρατοῦντα χρόνον (…).5

As a result of all this, the writings of the ancient iurisprudentes – the ius – effectively ceased to exist as a source of law in its own right. Henceforth, only one source of law remained: the imperial constitution, the leges. And the emperor Justinian himself was the very pinnacle of this entire new legal structure.6_{For, in the final clause of the prohibition of commentaries}

in const. Tanta / Δέδωκεν, he explicitly declared that the emperor was the only one invested with the authority to create and interpret laws:

(…). Si quid vero, ut supra dictum est, ambiguum fuerit visum, hoc ad imperiale culmen per iudices referatur et ex auctoritate Augusta manifestetur, cui soli concessum est leges et condere et interpretari. / (…). εἰ γάρ τι φανείη τυχὸν ἀμφισβητούμενον ἢ τοῖς τῶν δικῶν ἀγωνισταῖς ἢ τοῖς τοῦ κρίνειν προκαθημένοις, τοῦτο βασιλεὺς ἑρμηνεύσει καλῶς, ὅπερ αὐτῷ μόνῳ παρὰ τῶν νόμων ἐφεῖται. (…).7

The theme of the relationship between emperor and law had already occupied Justinian some years before.8_{The immediate cause for this involvement appears to have been the fact}

that Tribonian and the committee who drafted the first edition of the Justinian Code had encountered some doubt as to whether a judgement of the emperor ought to be regarded as

6 On Justinian as the sole source of law, cf. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘The End of an Epoch. Epilegomena to a Century of Interpolation Criticism’, in: R. Feenstra / A.S. Hartkamp / J.E. Spruit / P.J. Sijpesteijn / L.C. Winkel, (eds.), Collatio iuris romani. Études dédiées à Hans Ankum à l’occasion de son 65e

anniver-saire, Tome I, (Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia,

Vol. XXXV, A), Amsterdam 1995, 261-273 (263-265) (repr. in: J.H.A. Lokin, Analecta Groningana

ad ius graeco-romanum pertinentia, (edited by Th.E. van Bochove), Groningen 2010, 17-30 (19-21)).

8 Cf. C. Humfress, ‘Law and Legal Practice in the Age of Justinian’, in: M. Maas, (ed.), The Cambridge

(22)

89

law. Justinian dealt with this issue in no uncertain terms. For, in a constitution promulgated on 30 October 529 and addressed to the praetorian prefect Demosthenes, Justinian clearly stated that if the emperor had examined a case in court and had pronounced judgement in the presence of the litigants, all judges in the empire had to know that this sentence was legally valid, not only with regard to the case at hand, but for all similar cases as well. Justinian argued: what is more important and august than imperial majesty? Who dares to be so proud as to despise the opinion of the emperor, when even the creators of the ancient law have explicitly and clearly declared that constitutions, which have proceeded from an imperial decree, have force of law? But because we have also come across doubt in the ancient laws whether, if the opinion of the emperor has interpreted a law, this imperial interpretation ought to have force of law, we have both ridiculed this vain over-exactness and decided that it should be corrected. Therefore, Justinian ruled that every interpretation of a law given by the emperor in answer to petitions, or in legal proceedings, or in any other way, ought to be looked upon as confirmed and unquestionable. For, he reasoned, if at the present day the emperor is the only one allowed to create laws, then their interpretation ought also to be reserved for the imperial dignity alone. Justinian continued: Why do nobles take refuge with us when doubt arises in lawsuits and they consider themselves to be unfit or inadequate to decide the case, and why do our ears hear stories about ambiguities on the part of judges, (ambiguities) which happen to arise from laws, if the pure interpretation does not originate from us? Or who else will appear to be capable of solving legal riddles and clarifying them to all, if it not be he to whom alone is granted the right to be the creator of laws? Therefore, after these ridiculous doubts have been disposed of, it is the emperor alone who shall rightly be regarded as both the creator and the interpretor of laws; and this does by no means restrict the founders of the ancient ius, because it was the imperial majesty who allowed them this.

Imp. Iustinianus A. Demostheni pp. Si imperialis maiestas causam cognitionaliter

examina-verit et partibus cominus constitutis sententiam dixerit, omnes omnino iudices, qui sub nostro imperio sunt, sciant hoc esse legem non solum illi causae, pro qua producta est, sed omnibus similibus. 1. Quid enim maius, quid sanctius imperiali est maiestate? vel quis tantae superbiae fastidio tumidus est, ut regalem sensum contemnat, cum et veteris iuris conditores constitu-tiones, quae ex imperiali decreto processerunt, legis vicem obtinere aperte dilucideque defini-unt? 2. Cum igitur et hoc in veteribus legibus invenimus dubitatum, si imperialis sensus legem interpretatus est, an oporteat huiusmodi regiam interpretationem obtinere, eorum quidem vanam scrupulositatem tam risimus quam corrigendam esse censuimus. 3. Definimus autem omnem imperatoris legum interpretationem sive in precibus sive in iudiciis sive alio quocum-que modo factam ratam et indubitatam haberi. si enim in praesenti leges condere soli impera-tori concessum est, et leges interpretari solum dignum imperio esse oportet. 4. Cur autem ex

(23)

VAN BOCHOVE

90

suggestionibus procerum, si dubitatio in litibus oriatur et sese non esse idoneos vel sufficien-tes ad decisionem litis illi existiment, ad nos decurritur et quare ambiguitasufficien-tes iudicum, quas ex legibus oriri evenit, aures accipiunt nostrae, si non a nobis interpretatio mera procedit? Vel quis legum aenigmata solvere et omnibus aperire idoneus esse videbitur nisi is, cui soli legis latorem esse concessum est? 5. Explosis itaque huiusmodi ridiculosis ambiguitatibus tam con-ditor quam interpres legum solus imperator iuste existimabitur: nihil hac lege derogante veteris iuris conditoribus, quia et eis hoc maiestas imperialis permisit. Recitata septimo

milliario urbis Constantinopolitanae in novo consistorio Iustiniani. D. iii k. Nov. Decio vc. cons. (529).9

The final clause of this constitution – C. 1,14,12,5 – is slightly enigmatic and deserves some comment. For, this clause clearly states that only the emperor shall rightly be looked upon as both creator and interpreter of laws: tam conditor quam interpres legum solus imperator

iuste existimabitur. However, in the next sentence we read that the present law, viz.

C. 1,14,12 in its entirety, in no way diminishes the authority of the creators of ancient juris-prudence: nihil hac lege derogante veteris iuris conditoribus. These words appear to imply that the ius still existed as a separate source of law in its own right. Thus, we are confronted with the side by side existence of two separate sources of law, the ius and the emperor, despite Justinian’s assertion that only the emperor ought to be looked upon as creator and interpreter of laws. How is this little riddle to be solved?

As has been said, Justinian promulgated C. 1,14,12 in October 529, i.e. prior to the compilation of the Digest. In 529, the ius was still very much alive and kicking as an in-dependent source of law. This is clearly shown by the presence of the so-called Lex citandi in the first edition of Justinian’s Code, the Novus Codex from April 529. The Lex citandi (Law of Citations) was originally issued by the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III on 7 November 426, and eventually ended up in the Theodosian Code from 438.10_{The Law}

of Citations contained a regulation designed to help judges cope with the enormous amount

of writings of the ancient jurists, thus enabling the judges to pronounce judgement: CTh. 1,4,3 prescribed which iurisprudentes could be cited in the law courts – viz. Papinian, Paul, Gaius, Ulpian and Modestinus (and some other jurists directly quoted by them, such as Scaevola and Julianus) –, and also established a hierarchy between them. The gist of the

9 C. 1,14,12.

(24)

91

regulation of the Law of Citations was that, in order to find the correct opinion concerning any given legal issue, judges had to weigh the opinion of the various iurisprudentes on the relevant legal issue by simply counting their heads and then adopt the opinion of the majori-ty. The presence of the Lex citandi in the Novus Codex is based on the evidence of a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrhynchus, viz. P. Oxy. XV 1814. This papyrus contains a register of imperial constitutions adopted into the first book of the Novus Codex, citing only title rubrics and inscriptions of constitutions. On the verso of the papyrus we come across a title – numbered as 15 – dealing with the authority of jurists. Only the word iuris survives intact, but in all editions the rubric is restored as [de auctoritate] iuris [prudentium]. What follows is the inscription of CTh. 1,4,3, the Lex citandi:

R(ubrica) ιε [de auctoritate] iuris | [prudentium] R(ubrica) | [impp· Theodosius et V]alent· a ad se | [ad] ṣẹ[natu]m.11

On the basis of the above, we may assume that the Law of Citations featured in the Novus

Codex as C. 1,15,1. To this can be added that the Lex citandi has left no trace whatsoever in

the second edition of Justinian’s Code, the Codex repetitae praelectionis from December 534. In this edition of the Code, the corresponding title dealing with the authority of the

iurisprudentes is title 17 of the first book. Its rubric reads:

De veteri iure enucleando et auctoritate iuris prudentium qui in Digestis referuntur.12

As this rubric refers to the authority of iurisprudentes whose writings occur in the Digest, it is obvious that C. 1,17 reflects a state of affairs after the compilation of the Digest and its promulgation in December 533. The contents of C. 1,17 completely concurs with this. For, C. 1,17 contains two constitutions. The first of these (C. 1,17,1) is const. Deo auctore which commissioned Tribonian with the compilation of the Digest. The second (C. 1,17,2) is none other than const. Tanta which officially promulgated the Digest.13

11 P. Oxy. XV 1814, ll. 42-45 (ed. M. Amelotti / L. Migliardi Zingale, (a cura di), Le costituzioni

giustinianee nei papiri e nelle epigrafi, (Florentina studiorum universitas. Legum Iustiniani imperatoris

vocabularium. Subsidia, I), Milano 19852_{, 22).} 12 C. 1,17 rubr.

13 For this entire section, in particular P. Oxy. 1814 and the Lex citandi, cf. S. Corcoran, ‘Justinian and His Two Codes: Revisiting P. Oxy. 1814’, The Journal of Juristic Papyrology XXXVIII (2008), 73-111, especially 75 (with full references in note 8), and 95-99; S. Corcoran, ‘Anastasius, Justinian, and the Pagans: A Tale of Two Law Codes and a Papyrus’, Journal of Late Antiquity 2.2 (2009), 183-208 (184 and 186-187); S. Corcoran, ‘The Novvs Codex and the Codex repetitae praelectionis: Justinian and His Codes’, in: St. Benoist / A. Daguet-Cagey / Chr. Hoët-van Cauwenberghe, (eds.), Figures

(25)

VAN BOCHOVE

92

As a temporary solution to the above problem, viz. a solution adapted to the circumstances of the year 529, Justinian declared that his constitution (C. 1,14,12) in no way harmed the authority of the creators of ancient jurisprudence, because it was the imperial majesty that had given them the privilege to create law in the first place: quia et eis hoc maiestas

imperialis permisit. It has been suggested that this phrase may refer to an – imaginary or

simply non-extant Augustan – ruling granting certain lawyers the ius publice respondendi.14

However this may be, his statement enabled Justinian to argue that in 529 there was ultimately indeed only one source of law, i.e. the emperor, because it was an emperor who had granted lawyers the privilege to be the creators of ancient jurisprudence. The definitive solution to the above riddle was, of course, reached by the promulgation of const. Tanta /

Δέδωκεν on 16 December 533, which granted the Digest full force of law as of 30 December

of that year. While promulgating const. Tanta / Δέδωκεν, Justinian also issued his official ban on the collation of the texts of the iurisprudentes and that of the Digest, provided the

Digest with exclusivity, and turned the excerpts of the iurisprudentes incorporated into the Digest into his own words.15_{The Digest was promulgated as one very extensive imperial}

constitution. In this way, Justinian formally abrogated the ius as an independent source of law, leaving the emperor – and his imperial constitutions – indeed as the sole source of law.

The phraseology of C. 1,14,12 appears to be a veritable prequel of Justinian’s famous prohibition of commentaries as laid down in const. Tanta, § 21. For, the phrases leges

condere soli imperatori concessum est, et leges interpretari solum dignum imperio esse oportet in C. 1,14,12,3; is, cui soli legis latorem esse concessum est in C. 1,14,12,4, and,

finally, tam conditor quam interpres legum solus imperator iuste existimabitur in C. 1,14,12,5 have a very clear echo in the final clause of the prohibition in const. Tanta, § 21: Si quid vero (…) ambiguum fuerit visum, hoc ad imperiale culmen per iudices

refera-tur et ex auctoritate Augusta manifesterefera-tur, cui soli concessum est leges et condere et inter-pretari. This connection between the prohibition of commentaries and C. 1,14,12 is already

well-known for quite a long time, of course,16_{but how is it to be interpreted? In what way}

d’empire, fragments de mémoire. Pouvoirs et identités dans le monde romain impérial (IIe_{s. av. n. è.}

– VIe_{s. de n. è.), (Archaiologia), Villeneuve d’Ascq (Lille) 2011, 425-444 (434-435 and 440-443).}

14 Cf. in this sense Humfress, ‘Law and Legal Practice’ (note 8 above), 168-169. 15 For all this, cf. § 1 with the notes 3-5 above.

16 For this, cf. e.g. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Das Kommentarverbot Justinians’, TRG 45 (1977), 307-331 (330-331) (repr. in: H.J. Scheltema, Opera minora ad iuris historiam pertinentia, (collegerunt N. van der

(26)

93

can C. 1,14,12 shed light on the prohibition of commentaries, in view of the fact that this prohibition is fraught with problems?17

In the prohibition of commentaries in const. Tanta, § 21, Justinian first came up with a direct reference to the same prohibition as expressed in const. Deo auctore, § 12. He then ruled that none of the present or future iuris periti was allowed to append comments – here regard-less the exact meaning of this term – to the regulations contained in the text of the Digest. Next, the emperor formulated exceptions to his ruling: he allowed translations, or rather transformations, of the Latin text into Greek, in the same order and sequence of words as those of the Latin text; the Greeks called this mode of rendering κατὰ πόδα. The κατὰ πόδας was a new exception: it did not occur in Deo auctore. The second exception permitted by Justinian in Tanta were captions in headings styled παράτιτλα (per titulorum suptilitatem

adnotare maluerint et ea quae παράτιτλα nuncupantur componere). Justinian then expressly

forbade the iuris periti to add other interpretations of regulations, regarding those rather as perversions, and reasoning that by their verbosity the iuris periti ought not to cause discredit to his Digest, brought about by confusion. The emperor continued to argue that that was exactly what had happened in the case of the old commentators on the Perpetual Edict: by extending a work of modest dimensions in various directions to diverse opinions, they had endlessly stretched it, resulting in a confusion of nearly the entire Roman legal system. Justinian concluded that transgressors of the prohibition would be found guilty of com-mitting forgery, and that their books would be completely destroyed. In case of ambiguity, the judges were obliged to refer the matter to the emperor, who alone had the right to create law and interpret it:

Hoc autem, quod et ab initio nobis visum est, cum hoc opus fieri deo adnuente mandabamus, tempestivum nobis videtur et in praesenti sancire, ut nemo neque eorum, qui in praesenti iuris peritiam habent, nec qui postea fuerint audeat commentarios isdem legibus adnectere: nisi

Wal, J.H.A. Lokin, B.H. Stolte, Roos Meijering), Groningen 2004, 403-428) (428); G. Falcone, ‘The Prohibition of Commentaries to the Digest and the Antecessorial Literature’, SG IX (2014), 1-36 (15 with further references in note 35).

17 On the prohibition of commentaries in general, cf. Scheltema, ‘Kommentarverbot’ (note 16 above),

passim; Falcone, ‘Prohibition of Commentaries’ (note 16 above), passim, with further references in

note 1; T. Wallinga, TANTA / ΔΕΔΩΚΕΝ. Two Introductory Constitutions to Justinian’s Digest, Gro-ningen 1989, 107-116; Sp. Troianos, Le fonti del diritto bizantino. Traduzione a cura di P. Buongiorno, Torino 2015, 55-57 with further references.

(27)

VAN BOCHOVE

94

tantum si velit eas in Graecam vocem transformare sub eodem ordine eaque consequentia, sub qua et voces Romanae positae sunt (hoc quod Graeci κατὰ πόδα dicunt), et si qui forsitan per titulorum suptilitatem adnotare maluerint et ea quae παράτιτλα nuncupantur componere. Alias autem legum interpretationes, immo magis perversiones eos iactare non concedimus, ne verbositas eorum aliquid legibus nostris adferat ex confusione dedecus. Quod et in antiquis edicti perpetui commentatoribus factum est, qui opus moderate confectum huc atque illuc in diversas sententias producentes in infinitum detraxerunt, ut paene omnem Romanam sanctio-nem esse confusam. quos si passi non sumus, quemadmodum posteritatis admittatur vana dis-cordia? si quid autem tale facere ausi fuerint, ipsi quidem falsitatis rei constituantur, volumina autem eorum omnimodo corrumpentur. Si quid vero, ut supra dictum est, ambiguum fuerit visum, hoc ad imperiale culmen per iudices referatur et ex auctoritate Augusta manifestetur, cui soli concessum est leges et condere et interpretari.18

One of the problems regarding the prohibition of commentaries is the question why this prohibition only pertained to the Digest, and why it did not relate to the Institutes and in particular the Code as well.19_{In other words: why was the prohibition omitted from const.}

Cordi which officially promulgated the second edition of the Code on 16 November 534?

Various attempts have been made to deal with this issue. Scheltema, e.g., argued that the prohibition explicitly related to Justinian’s codification in its entirety, and interpreted the wordings of the ban in both Deo auctore and Tanta in such a way as to fit in with this point of view.20_{Other scholars maintained that the prohibition referred to the Institutes and}

the Code only implicitly. Both explanations have been refuted by reason of the fact that the wording of the prohibition is incompatible with them.21_{In his turn, Wallinga tried to find a}

solution via the difference in character and style between the Digest and the Code, but ultimately concluded that his explanation remained somewhat unsatisfactory.22_{However all}

18 Const. Tanta, § 21.

19 On this issue in general, cf. e.g. Falcone, ‘Prohibition of Commentaries’ (note 16 above), 3-5 with further references in note 3.

20 Scheltema, ‘Kommentarverbot’ (note 16 above), 326-327 (= 423-425)

21 Cf. Wallinga, TΑΝΤΑ / ΔΕΔΩΚΕΝ (note 17 above), 112-113; Falcone, ‘Prohibition of Commentaries’ (note 16 above), 4-5, and 3 note 3 (literature on the implicit reference of the prohibition to the entire codification).

22 Cf. Wallinga, TΑΝΤΑ / ΔΕΔΩΚΕΝ (note 17 above), 113: ‘I think that the different character of the Digest and the Code may well be the explanation. The Code was not a new thing; a similar one had

(28)

95

this may be, an answer to the above questions is important, if only because Falcone recently argued that if Justinian had really intended his prohibition of commentaries to be a measure to protect the authenticity of the text (viz. of his codification), he would have issued this ban not only with reference to the Digest, but to the Institutes and the Code as well.23

In the end, various factors may have contributed to Justinian’s decision to issue his prohibi-tion of commentaries only with reference to the Digest. But it is at this point that C. 1,14,12 comes into play. We have already seen that three phrases from this constitution have a very clear echo in the final clause of the prohibition in const. Tanta, § 21.24_{But there is more to}

be said about this. For, C. 1,14,12 provides very clear evidence of Justinian’s preoccupation with the imperial prerogative of being the sole interpreter of the laws.25_{Even at the time of}

the promulgation of the constitution, viz. in the year 529, when the ius still existed as an independent source of law in its own right, including its many conflicting opinions and interpretations, Justinian exhibited a certain ‘touchiness’ on the subject. He was very insis-tent on his role of being the only one allowed to give interpretations. The promulgation of the Digest as one imperial constitution in 533 meant that Justinian had, at least legally speaking, eliminated all those conflicting interpretations and opinions of the old

iurispru-dentes whose text fragments had been adopted into the Digest. The official promulgation of

the Digest formally abrogated the ius as an independent source of law: by this, Justinian had appropriated the words of the ancient iurisprudentes and made them his very own.26

Henceforth, there existed only the Digest: legally speaking, it contained Justinian’s selection of excerpts from the writings of the old iurisprudentes and, more importantly, the emperor’s own interpretation thereof. He could formally regard the Digest as his very own work: from a legal perspective, it was indeed the mouth of the emperor that hath spoken the

Digest. Seen against this background, Justinian was most probably extra keen on the

been in use for almost a century. Moreover, its style was very different from the Digest’s: more sober and to the point. The Digest, summarizing the works of the jurists and retaining their more elaborate style, was probably regarded as a potential invitation to start thinking about legal issues and possibly writing down some notes in the margins. Because of the similarity in style, these could then more easily be mistaken for parts of the text than in the case of the Code. But this remains a somewhat unsatisfactory explanation, and unless the absence of a prohibition of commentaries in constitutio Cordi is ever found to be the result of a faulty transmission of the text, it will always remain a problem.’

23 Cf. Falcone, ‘Prohibition of Commentaries’ (note 16 above), 18-19 with the notes 45 and 46. 24 Cf. § 4 above.

25 Cf. the contents of C. 1,14,12 as rendered in § 2 above. 26 For all this, cf. § 1 above.

(29)

VAN BOCHOVE

96

possibility of textual corruption, more so than in the case of the Code and the Institutes. It is quite possible that the elimination of the old conflicting interpretations led Justinian to consider his Digest text as vulnerable in terms of running an increased risk of corruption by the illicit addition of marginal comments – in whatever form, and again regardless the exact meaning of the term – containing new diverging interpretations but pretending to be authen-tic Digest text. In any case, the emperor would surely feel such additions a personal affront, an infringement of his imperial prerogative as sole interpreter of the laws. Seen from this perspective, it is no more than logical to argue that Justinian left no stone unturned in order to preclude the possibility of new additions being made to his Digest, additions containing new interpretations that might openly challenge ‘his’ interpretation as established in the

Digest text. For Justinian, the appropriate means to avoid this was, of course, to issue his

prohibition of commentaries pertaining to the Digest alone, first in 530 in const. Deo

aucto-re, and then in greater detail in 533 in const. Tanta / Δέδωκεν. After the completion of the Digest text, and even when the work on its compilation was first commissioned, the

prohibition of commentaries was merely the logical sequel to C. 1,14,12.